03-21-2017, 12:16 PM
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
03-21-2017, 12:55 PM
And that's where the un-needed war toys that Drump wants to waste our money on will end up, whereas as Ike said we could have built hospitals, schools, highways, and fed millions, as well as pursue the renewable energy that Drump wants to totally deny the need for, and instead ramp up the pollution and climate change.
03-21-2017, 10:16 PM
It's a question of whether we want oligarchs and racists to continue to run our government. I don't think they represent the will of the people, but they manage to rig the system and get enough fanatics to support them to keep complacent Americans from ruling their own country. Now is the time to take it back, by defeating Drump and the GOP forever, and winning with a positive agenda of creating the sustainable and prosperous future for all.
03-21-2017, 10:32 PM
(03-21-2017, 04:25 PM)nihilist moron Wrote: [ -> ]A black person who voted for Trump must be an "Uncle Tom" i.e. dumb n*gger. Because black people can't possibly be smart enough to make their decisions on their own.
None of which means that (you know who) made the right decision, which he didn't.
03-22-2017, 02:09 AM
(03-21-2017, 10:32 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ](03-21-2017, 04:25 PM)nihilist moron Wrote: [ -> ]A black person who voted for Trump must be an "Uncle Tom" i.e. dumb n*gger. Because black people can't possibly be smart enough to make their decisions on their own.
None of which means that (you know who) made the right decision, which he didn't.
What was the right decision that 'Uncle Tom' didn't make?
03-22-2017, 06:51 AM
(03-21-2017, 08:57 AM)Snowflake Wrote: [ -> ](03-21-2017, 07:08 AM)Odin Wrote: [ -> ](03-20-2017, 11:19 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/polit.../99320230/
Three Democratic senators want the government to investigate Trump aide Sebastian Gorka, following reports of Gorka's ties to a far-right group in Hungary.
Democratic Sens. Ben Cardin of Maryland, Dick Durbin of Illinois and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut on Friday sent a letter to the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security, asking that they look into whether Gorka, Trump's counterterrorism adviser, falsified his naturalization application or "other illegally procured his citizenship."
At issue is whether Gorka is a member of Vitézi Rend, a group that is listed by the State Department as an organization that is under the direction of Nazi Germany. The Forward reported that Gorka was a member of the group, but he later denied any association with the group to Tablet Magazine.
The group was founded by Miklos Horthy, the ruler of Hungary from 1920 to 1944. Horthy was a Nazi ally.
"Membership in an anti-Semitic organization like the Historical Vitézi Rend should raise serious concerns regarding whether an individual holds the sort of 'hostile attitudes' that concern the administration," the senators wrote. "Failure to address this case would further confirm the intent of this Administration is to discriminate on the basis of religion, rather than combat extremist views."
Cue our resident Uncle Tom telling us how Neo-Nazis like Gorka aren't actually racist and how we left-wingers are somehow the real racists.
Who are you referring to as 'Uncle Tom'?
Kinser, and if he dares get offended at me calling him that he's a hypocrite. He keeps insisting that the Alt-Right isn't full of white supremacists.
03-22-2017, 06:55 AM
(03-21-2017, 04:25 PM)nihilist moron Wrote: [ -> ]A black person who voted for Trump must be an "Uncle Tom" i.e. dumb n*gger. Because black people can't possibly be smart enough to make their decisions on their own.
No, Odin, you're not a racist at all.
No, a black person who voted for Trump is like a white person who voted for Trump, a sucker who got conned.
03-22-2017, 11:05 AM
(03-22-2017, 02:09 AM)Snowflake Wrote: [ -> ](03-21-2017, 10:32 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ](03-21-2017, 04:25 PM)nihilist moron Wrote: [ -> ]A black person who voted for Trump must be an "Uncle Tom" i.e. dumb n*gger. Because black people can't possibly be smart enough to make their decisions on their own.
None of which means that (you know who) made the right decision, which he didn't.
What was the right decision that 'Uncle Tom' didn't make?
He voted and campaigned for the Drump.
03-22-2017, 11:08 AM
(03-22-2017, 07:21 AM)nihilist moron Wrote: [ -> ]I thought that white people who voted for Trump were racist, sexist, homophobic, pinko commie Nazis.
It certainly indicates that, if you vote for one (which you did, if you voted for Drump), you don't have much of a problem with those things.
Quote:If there's no difference between black and white Trump voters, there's no need to use a racist epithet when describing a black one.
No there isn't. It's just that most black people, because of their circumstances, know better than to be a Drump voter.
03-22-2017, 11:50 AM
It is a veteran's group, but it does have connections to the long-deposed fascist regime of Miklos Horthy. Horthy may not have been the worst of fascist dictators (the Nazis found him excessively indecisive about persecuting and deporting the Jews, and set up their own puppets for that insidious purpose). The group was outlawed in accordance with the Paris Peace Treaty as a fascistic organization -- and although the group claims to blame Communists for its illegal status in Hungary, the group remains illicit in Hungary nearly thirty years after the fall of Communism in Hungary. It is likely illegal for very good reason.
Yes, the Communists outlawed the Boy Scouts and many Catholic organizations, but those have been reinstated. This group may not be as vile as the monstrous Arrow Cross, but like the Iron Guard of Romania, the Ustase in Croatia, and the Fascist Party in Italy, let alone Nazi groups just about everywhere in what had been Nazi Germany and occupied or satellite countries, it remains proscribed.
Yes, the Communists outlawed the Boy Scouts and many Catholic organizations, but those have been reinstated. This group may not be as vile as the monstrous Arrow Cross, but like the Iron Guard of Romania, the Ustase in Croatia, and the Fascist Party in Italy, let alone Nazi groups just about everywhere in what had been Nazi Germany and occupied or satellite countries, it remains proscribed.
03-22-2017, 01:19 PM
Behind the rhetoric: the Gorsuch record
from Democracy Now
https://www.democracynow.org/2017/3/21/b...his_record
The thing to realize, is that the Gorsuch appointment, pushed through quickly, is intended to freeze in place gerrymandering and voter restrictions that keep Republicans in power. If the Democrats want any power in the future, it's up to them NOW to filibuster Gorsuch, and put the onus of installing the nuclear option upon the Republicans NOW.
excerpts:
IAN MILLHISER: ... I was really struck by the difference between Judge Gorsuch’s rhetoric at the hearing and what I see in his record as a judge. Judge Gorsuch comes out of a tradition that’s become particularly prominent on the right since Barack Obama was sworn in, that calls for judges to be more active, more aggressive in pushing a conservative agenda, more hostile to agency regulation, more hostile to laws like the Affordable Care Act. And everything I see in Judge Gorsuch’s record suggests that he very much believes in that agenda. Whether you look at his Hobby Lobby decision, you look at his efforts to dismantle many of the powers that agencies like the EPA has, this looks like he’s going to be a very aggressive judge. So I was surprised to hear him talk about judicial modesty and not behaving like a super-legislator, because when I look at his record, I mean, modesty does not seem to be what he is interested in.
IAN MILLHISER: ...we’re probably looking at a vote sometime in April. They want to get this done as quick as possible, so that something like, say, for example, an FBI investigation into the president of the United States doesn’t derail this confirmation. You know, Republicans know what’s at stake here. There’s a big gerrymandering case that’s going to be heard by the Supreme Court next term. There’s a bunch of cases involving the future of voter suppression laws in places like North Carolina. So these guys have done—
AMY GOODMAN: Travel ban.
IAN MILLHISER: Travel ban, right. I mean, these guys have done a great deal to manipulate the way that our elections are held, and make it easier for Republicans and harder for Democrats. And if the Supreme Court takes that away from them—and if Merrick Garland had been confirmed, it’s likely that the Supreme Court would say, "No more of that. You don’t get to manipulate elections anymore"— Republicans would be in a very difficult position. So they want this guy confirmed fast, because they want their conservative majority that’s going to protect these laws that allow them to manipulate how our elections are held.
Ian's report goes on in the next segment to mention the high number of Judge vacancies and impending retirements, which will allow the ultra-conservative Federalist Society to choose our judges over the next few years. A Trump Supreme Court with Gorsuch would likely uphold the repressive rulings of these judges.
from Democracy Now
https://www.democracynow.org/2017/3/21/b...his_record
The thing to realize, is that the Gorsuch appointment, pushed through quickly, is intended to freeze in place gerrymandering and voter restrictions that keep Republicans in power. If the Democrats want any power in the future, it's up to them NOW to filibuster Gorsuch, and put the onus of installing the nuclear option upon the Republicans NOW.
excerpts:
IAN MILLHISER: ... I was really struck by the difference between Judge Gorsuch’s rhetoric at the hearing and what I see in his record as a judge. Judge Gorsuch comes out of a tradition that’s become particularly prominent on the right since Barack Obama was sworn in, that calls for judges to be more active, more aggressive in pushing a conservative agenda, more hostile to agency regulation, more hostile to laws like the Affordable Care Act. And everything I see in Judge Gorsuch’s record suggests that he very much believes in that agenda. Whether you look at his Hobby Lobby decision, you look at his efforts to dismantle many of the powers that agencies like the EPA has, this looks like he’s going to be a very aggressive judge. So I was surprised to hear him talk about judicial modesty and not behaving like a super-legislator, because when I look at his record, I mean, modesty does not seem to be what he is interested in.
IAN MILLHISER: ...we’re probably looking at a vote sometime in April. They want to get this done as quick as possible, so that something like, say, for example, an FBI investigation into the president of the United States doesn’t derail this confirmation. You know, Republicans know what’s at stake here. There’s a big gerrymandering case that’s going to be heard by the Supreme Court next term. There’s a bunch of cases involving the future of voter suppression laws in places like North Carolina. So these guys have done—
AMY GOODMAN: Travel ban.
IAN MILLHISER: Travel ban, right. I mean, these guys have done a great deal to manipulate the way that our elections are held, and make it easier for Republicans and harder for Democrats. And if the Supreme Court takes that away from them—and if Merrick Garland had been confirmed, it’s likely that the Supreme Court would say, "No more of that. You don’t get to manipulate elections anymore"— Republicans would be in a very difficult position. So they want this guy confirmed fast, because they want their conservative majority that’s going to protect these laws that allow them to manipulate how our elections are held.
Ian's report goes on in the next segment to mention the high number of Judge vacancies and impending retirements, which will allow the ultra-conservative Federalist Society to choose our judges over the next few years. A Trump Supreme Court with Gorsuch would likely uphold the repressive rulings of these judges.
03-22-2017, 06:14 PM
(03-22-2017, 07:21 AM)nihilist moron Wrote: [ -> ]I thought that white people who voted for Trump were racist, sexist, homophobic, pinko commie Nazis.
Some Trump voters are racists, some. Sure, there are people saying everyone who voted for Trump is a racist, and those people are stupid.
03-22-2017, 06:21 PM
(03-22-2017, 04:16 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ](03-22-2017, 01:19 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Behind the rhetoric: the Gorsuch record
from Democracy Now
https://www.democracynow.org/2017/3/21/b...his_record
The thing to realize, is that the Gorsuch appointment, pushed through quickly, is intended to freeze in place gerrymandering and voter restrictions that keep Republicans in power. If the Democrats want any power in the future, it's up to them NOW to filibuster Gorsuch, and put the onus of installing the nuclear option upon the Republicans NOW.
excerpts:
IAN MILLHISER: ... I was really struck by the difference between Judge Gorsuch’s rhetoric at the hearing and what I see in his record as a judge. Judge Gorsuch comes out of a tradition that’s become particularly prominent on the right since Barack Obama was sworn in, that calls for judges to be more active, more aggressive in pushing a conservative agenda, more hostile to agency regulation, more hostile to laws like the Affordable Care Act. And everything I see in Judge Gorsuch’s record suggests that he very much believes in that agenda. Whether you look at his Hobby Lobby decision, you look at his efforts to dismantle many of the powers that agencies like the EPA has, this looks like he’s going to be a very aggressive judge. So I was surprised to hear him talk about judicial modesty and not behaving like a super-legislator, because when I look at his record, I mean, modesty does not seem to be what he is interested in.
IAN MILLHISER: ...we’re probably looking at a vote sometime in April. They want to get this done as quick as possible, so that something like, say, for example, an FBI investigation into the president of the United States doesn’t derail this confirmation. You know, Republicans know what’s at stake here. There’s a big gerrymandering case that’s going to be heard by the Supreme Court next term. There’s a bunch of cases involving the future of voter suppression laws in places like North Carolina. So these guys have done—
AMY GOODMAN: Travel ban.
IAN MILLHISER: Travel ban, right. I mean, these guys have done a great deal to manipulate the way that our elections are held, and make it easier for Republicans and harder for Democrats. And if the Supreme Court takes that away from them—and if Merrick Garland had been confirmed, it’s likely that the Supreme Court would say, "No more of that. You don’t get to manipulate elections anymore"— Republicans would be in a very difficult position. So they want this guy confirmed fast, because they want their conservative majority that’s going to protect these laws that allow them to manipulate how our elections are held.
Ian's report goes on in the next segment to mention the high number of Judge vacancies and impending retirements, which will allow the ultra-conservative Federalist Society to choose our judges over the next few years. A Trump Supreme Court with Gorsuch would likely uphold the repressive rulings of these judges.
On both the Right and the Left, the Stench from the Bench need to stop doing de facto legislation via judicial activism.
At the same time, blatant judicial activism (like Roe v. Wade) should not be confused with a judge exercising common sense. I was listening to a bit from the Gorsuch hearing about that case involving the trucker who got fired because he didn't want to freeze to death and how Gorsuch sided against the trucker because of his strict textualism, in the defiance of common sense (even Gorsuch said he would have done what the trucker did had he been in the position!).
03-23-2017, 06:37 AM
(03-22-2017, 11:05 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ](03-22-2017, 02:09 AM)Snowflake Wrote: [ -> ](03-21-2017, 10:32 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ](03-21-2017, 04:25 PM)nihilist moron Wrote: [ -> ]A black person who voted for Trump must be an "Uncle Tom" i.e. dumb n*gger. Because black people can't possibly be smart enough to make their decisions on their own.
None of which means that (you know who) made the right decision, which he didn't.
What was the right decision that 'Uncle Tom' didn't make?
He voted and campaigned for the Drump.
This is not an answer to my question.
03-23-2017, 06:56 AM
(03-22-2017, 07:21 AM)nihilist moron Wrote: [ -> ]I thought that white people who voted for Trump were racist, sexist, homophobic, pinko commie Nazis.
If there's no difference between black and white Trump voters, there's no need to use a racist epithet when describing a black one.
That's exactly what I was thinking!
(btw, I think you forgot 'xenophobic'.
)#Blindspot?
03-23-2017, 01:20 PM
(03-23-2017, 06:37 AM)Snowflake Wrote: [ -> ](03-22-2017, 11:05 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ](03-22-2017, 02:09 AM)Snowflake Wrote: [ -> ](03-21-2017, 10:32 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ](03-21-2017, 04:25 PM)nihilist moron Wrote: [ -> ]A black person who voted for Trump must be an "Uncle Tom" i.e. dumb n*gger. Because black people can't possibly be smart enough to make their decisions on their own.
None of which means that (you know who) made the right decision, which he didn't.
What was the right decision that 'Uncle Tom' didn't make?
He voted and campaigned for the Drump.
This is not an answer to my question.
That is the only answer to your question.
03-27-2017, 12:33 PM
Truly, if Trump wants to change course and work with some Democrats and center-right Republicans, he's going to have to change his cabinet and inner circle too, among other things. One of the first wolves he's going to need to expel is Pruitt.
Trump’s EPA Chief May Face Discipline for Lying to Congress in Confirmation Hearings
March 21, 2017Ed Hanratty Politics
http://reverbpress.com/politics/trumps-e...-hearings/
Lying About Using Personal Email May Lead To Discipline For Scott Pruitt
An environmental watchdog group has paired with a law professor to file a formal complaint against Donald Trump’s EPA Director Scott Pruitt. While there are multiple allegations that he perjured himself during his senate confirmation hearing, the complaint seeks clarification over whether or not he “was truthful”. If it is found that Pruitt was, in fact, lying to congress about his use of private email for official purposes as Oklahoma Attorney General, he could face suspension of his law license or even disbarment. This would add another layer of controversy to a man already viewed skeptically in many environmental circles.
The Center for Biological Diversity — based in Tucson, Arizona — has teamed with University of Oklahoma Law Professor Kristen van de Biezenbos to petition the Oklahoma Bar Association to investigate whether or not Pruitt lied to Congress. According to the center’s press release:
"Today’s complaint asserts that Pruitt violated Oklahoma’s rules of professional conduct when he told Senator Sheldon Whitehouse during his confirmation hearing that he did not use a personal “me.com” email address for official state business while attorney general of Oklahoma. Records released in the course of an Oklahoma public records lawsuit show that Pruitt received at least one email message, and possibly more, at a “me.com” email address. Additional records are still being reviewed by Oklahoma courts for possible public release."
KOKH was the first to report last month that Pruitt was potentially using private email to conduct state business. A week later, the Oklahoma Attorney General’s Office confirmed as much. And while the network notes that it’s “not illegal to use a private email account for state business, as long as those records are included in searches for public documents”:
"(T)he revelation is in direct conflict with Pruitt’s written and oral testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee during the confirmation process. Pruitt, who is now the administrator of the Environmental Protetion Agency, told lawmakers he had never used private email for state business."
What Could This Mean For Pruitt?
When contacted by Reverb Press, van de Biezenbos noted the confidentiality of the precise details and directed any questions about potential discipline to the Oklahoma Bar Association Office of General Counsel. Their mission statement, however, notes:
"Lawyers who are found guilty of serious misconduct, such as theft of client funds, may be suspended or disbarred from practicing law."
When asked why she, along with the Center for Biological Diversity decided to file the complaint, van de Biezenbos told me that Pruitt should be held to the same standard as any practicing Oklahoma attorney:
"The CBO and I decided to file the complaint because dishonesty before a Senate panel is a serious breach of Mr. Pruitt’s ethical obligations as a member of the legal profession and the Oklahoma Bar Association. Further, honesty is something that we all, as Americans, expect and deserve from our elected and appointed government officials."
Thus, we are asking the Oklahoma Bar Association’s Office of General Counsel to conduct an investigation into whether or not Mr. Pruitt failed to answer questions about use of his personal email address for official Oklahoma state business and, if he did so, to take whatever steps it deems appropriate to discipline him. This is the same procedure that any Oklahoma attorney who may have committed an ethical violation would also have to face.
When asked if he was attempting to hide anything with the use of a “dot-me” domain, she likewise referenced how it wasn’t illegal and questioned what the motivations were:
"I don’t know why Mr. Pruitt didn’t admit to using his personal email for official Oklahoma business when questioned during his confirmation hearing. It isn’t illegal to do so under Oklahoma law, so it’s not clear why Mr. Pruitt didn’t simply admit to it. Our current complaint is only about seeking a determination of whether or not Mr. Pruitt was truthful with respect to the use of his personal email address in the first place, although if he wasn’t truthful, it does raise worrisome questions about why not."
The formal complaint is only the first step in the process and nothing should be considered imminent. But for an administration in its infancy and already clouded by criminal investigations, another inquiry further reduces the pledge to “Drain the Swamp” to the sickest joke in the history of presidential campaigns.
Trump’s EPA Chief May Face Discipline for Lying to Congress in Confirmation Hearings
March 21, 2017Ed Hanratty Politics
http://reverbpress.com/politics/trumps-e...-hearings/
Lying About Using Personal Email May Lead To Discipline For Scott Pruitt
An environmental watchdog group has paired with a law professor to file a formal complaint against Donald Trump’s EPA Director Scott Pruitt. While there are multiple allegations that he perjured himself during his senate confirmation hearing, the complaint seeks clarification over whether or not he “was truthful”. If it is found that Pruitt was, in fact, lying to congress about his use of private email for official purposes as Oklahoma Attorney General, he could face suspension of his law license or even disbarment. This would add another layer of controversy to a man already viewed skeptically in many environmental circles.
The Center for Biological Diversity — based in Tucson, Arizona — has teamed with University of Oklahoma Law Professor Kristen van de Biezenbos to petition the Oklahoma Bar Association to investigate whether or not Pruitt lied to Congress. According to the center’s press release:
"Today’s complaint asserts that Pruitt violated Oklahoma’s rules of professional conduct when he told Senator Sheldon Whitehouse during his confirmation hearing that he did not use a personal “me.com” email address for official state business while attorney general of Oklahoma. Records released in the course of an Oklahoma public records lawsuit show that Pruitt received at least one email message, and possibly more, at a “me.com” email address. Additional records are still being reviewed by Oklahoma courts for possible public release."
KOKH was the first to report last month that Pruitt was potentially using private email to conduct state business. A week later, the Oklahoma Attorney General’s Office confirmed as much. And while the network notes that it’s “not illegal to use a private email account for state business, as long as those records are included in searches for public documents”:
"(T)he revelation is in direct conflict with Pruitt’s written and oral testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee during the confirmation process. Pruitt, who is now the administrator of the Environmental Protetion Agency, told lawmakers he had never used private email for state business."
What Could This Mean For Pruitt?
When contacted by Reverb Press, van de Biezenbos noted the confidentiality of the precise details and directed any questions about potential discipline to the Oklahoma Bar Association Office of General Counsel. Their mission statement, however, notes:
"Lawyers who are found guilty of serious misconduct, such as theft of client funds, may be suspended or disbarred from practicing law."
When asked why she, along with the Center for Biological Diversity decided to file the complaint, van de Biezenbos told me that Pruitt should be held to the same standard as any practicing Oklahoma attorney:
"The CBO and I decided to file the complaint because dishonesty before a Senate panel is a serious breach of Mr. Pruitt’s ethical obligations as a member of the legal profession and the Oklahoma Bar Association. Further, honesty is something that we all, as Americans, expect and deserve from our elected and appointed government officials."
Thus, we are asking the Oklahoma Bar Association’s Office of General Counsel to conduct an investigation into whether or not Mr. Pruitt failed to answer questions about use of his personal email address for official Oklahoma state business and, if he did so, to take whatever steps it deems appropriate to discipline him. This is the same procedure that any Oklahoma attorney who may have committed an ethical violation would also have to face.
When asked if he was attempting to hide anything with the use of a “dot-me” domain, she likewise referenced how it wasn’t illegal and questioned what the motivations were:
"I don’t know why Mr. Pruitt didn’t admit to using his personal email for official Oklahoma business when questioned during his confirmation hearing. It isn’t illegal to do so under Oklahoma law, so it’s not clear why Mr. Pruitt didn’t simply admit to it. Our current complaint is only about seeking a determination of whether or not Mr. Pruitt was truthful with respect to the use of his personal email address in the first place, although if he wasn’t truthful, it does raise worrisome questions about why not."
The formal complaint is only the first step in the process and nothing should be considered imminent. But for an administration in its infancy and already clouded by criminal investigations, another inquiry further reduces the pledge to “Drain the Swamp” to the sickest joke in the history of presidential campaigns.
03-30-2017, 09:44 AM
Waffling on Gorsuch:
Undeclared Position
Need to hear from you.
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Coons (D-DE)
Cortez Masto (D-NV)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Duckworth (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
King (I–ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Leahy (D-VT)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Schatz (D-HI)
Tester (D-MT)
Warner (D-VA)
We need 41 to stop
Neil Gorsuch
We have 28
Undeclared Position
Need to hear from you.
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Coons (D-DE)
Cortez Masto (D-NV)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Duckworth (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
King (I–ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Leahy (D-VT)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Schatz (D-HI)
Tester (D-MT)
Warner (D-VA)
We need 41 to stop
Neil Gorsuch
We have 28
03-30-2017, 10:15 AM
Robert Mercer: the big data billionaire waging war on mainstream media
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/201...are_btn_fb
Just over a week ago, Donald Trump gathered members of the world’s press before him and told them they were liars. “The press, honestly, is out of control,” he said. “The public doesn’t believe you any more.” CNN was described as “very fake news… story after story is bad”. The BBC was “another beauty”.
That night I did two things. First, I typed “Trump” in the search box of Twitter. My feed was reporting that he was crazy, a lunatic, a raving madman. But that wasn’t how it was playing out elsewhere. The results produced a stream of “Go Donald!!!!”, and “You show ’em!!!” There were star-spangled banner emojis and thumbs-up emojis and clips of Trump laying into the “FAKE news MSM liars!”
Trump had spoken, and his audience had heard him. Then I did what I’ve been doing for two and a half months now. I Googled “mainstream media is…” And there it was. Google’s autocomplete suggestions: “mainstream media is… dead, dying, fake news, fake, finished”. Is it dead, I wonder? Has FAKE news won? Are we now the FAKE news? Is the mainstream media – we, us, I – dying?
I click Google’s first suggested link. It leads to a website called CNSnews.com and an article: “The Mainstream media are dead.” They’re dead, I learn, because they – we, I – “cannot be trusted”. How had it, an obscure site I’d never heard of, dominated Google’s search algorithm on the topic? In the “About us” tab, I learn CNSnews is owned by the Media Research Center, which a click later I learn is “America’s media watchdog”, an organisation that claims an “unwavering commitment to neutralising leftwing bias in the news, media and popular culture”.
Another couple of clicks and I discover that it receives a large bulk of its funding – more than $10m in the past decade – from a single source, the hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer. If you follow US politics you may recognise the name. Robert Mercer is the money behind Donald Trump. But then, I will come to learn, Robert Mercer is the money behind an awful lot of things. He was Trump’s single biggest donor. Mercer started backing Ted Cruz, but when he fell out of the presidential race he threw his money – $13.5m of it – behind the Trump campaign.
It’s money he’s made as a result of his career as a brilliant but reclusive computer scientist. He started his career at IBM, where he made what the Association for Computational Linguistics called “revolutionary” breakthroughs in language processing – a science that went on to be key in developing today’s AI – and later became joint CEO of Renaissance Technologies, a hedge fund that makes its money by using algorithms to model and trade on the financial markets.
One of its funds, Medallion, which manages only its employees’ money, is the most successful in the world – generating $55bn so far. And since 2010, Mercer has donated $45m to different political campaigns – all Republican – and another $50m to non-profits – all rightwing, ultra-conservative. This is a billionaire who is, as billionaires are wont, trying to reshape the world according to his personal beliefs.
Donald Trump’s presidential campaigned received $13.5m from Robert Mercer. Photograph: Timothy A Clary/AFP/Getty Images
Robert Mercer very rarely speaks in public and never to journalists, so to gauge his beliefs you have to look at where he channels his money: a series of yachts, all called Sea Owl; a $2.9m model train set; climate change denial (he funds a climate change denial thinktank, the Heartland Institute); and what is maybe the ultimate rich man’s plaything – the disruption of the mainstream media. In this he is helped by his close associate Steve Bannon, Trump’s campaign manager and now chief strategist. The money he gives to the Media Research Center, with its mission of correcting “liberal bias” is just one of his media plays. There are other bigger, and even more deliberate strategies, and shining brightly, the star at the centre of the Mercer media galaxy, is Breitbart.
It was $10m of Mercer’s money that enabled Bannon to fund Breitbart – a rightwing news site, set up with the express intention of being a Huffington Post for the right. It has launched the careers of Milo Yiannopoulos and his like, regularly hosts antisemitic and Islamophobic views, and is currently being boycotted by more than 1,000 brands after an activist campaign. It has been phenomenally successful: the 29th most popular site in America with 2bn page views a year. It’s bigger than its inspiration, the Huffington Post, bigger, even, than PornHub. It’s the biggest political site on Facebook. The biggest on Twitter.
Prominent rightwing journalist Andrew Breitbart, who founded the site but died in 2012, told Bannon that they had “to take back the culture”. And, arguably, they have, though American culture is only the start of it. In 2014, Bannon launched Breitbart London, telling the New York Times it was specifically timed ahead of the UK’s forthcoming election. It was, he said, the latest front “in our current cultural and political war”. France and Germany are next.
A determined plutocrat and a brilliant media strategist can, and have, found a way to mould journalism to their own ends
But there was another reason why I recognised Robert Mercer’s name: because of his connection to Cambridge Analytica, a small data analytics company. He is reported to have a $10m stake in the company, which was spun out of a bigger British company called SCL Group. It specialises in “election management strategies” and “messaging and information operations”, refined over 25 years in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan. In military circles this is known as “psyops” – psychological operations. (Mass propaganda that works by acting on people’s emotions.)
Cambridge Analytica worked for the Trump campaign and, so I’d read, the Leave campaign. When Mercer supported Cruz, Cambridge Analytica worked with Cruz. When Robert Mercer started supporting Trump, Cambridge Analytica came too. And where Mercer’s money is, Steve Bannon is usually close by: it was reported that until recently he had a seat on the board.
Last December, I wrote about Cambridge Analytica in a piece about how Google’s search results on certain subjects were being dominated by rightwing and extremist sites. Jonathan Albright, a professor of communications at Elon University, North Carolina, who had mapped the news ecosystem and found millions of links between rightwing sites “strangling” the mainstream media, told me that trackers from sites like Breitbart could also be used by companies like Cambridge Analytica to follow people around the web and then, via Facebook, target them with ads.
On its website, Cambridge Analytica makes the astonishing boast that it has psychological profiles based on 5,000 separate pieces of data on 220 million American voters – its USP is to use this data to understand people’s deepest emotions and then target them accordingly. The system, according to Albright, amounted to a “propaganda machine”.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/201...are_btn_fb
Just over a week ago, Donald Trump gathered members of the world’s press before him and told them they were liars. “The press, honestly, is out of control,” he said. “The public doesn’t believe you any more.” CNN was described as “very fake news… story after story is bad”. The BBC was “another beauty”.
That night I did two things. First, I typed “Trump” in the search box of Twitter. My feed was reporting that he was crazy, a lunatic, a raving madman. But that wasn’t how it was playing out elsewhere. The results produced a stream of “Go Donald!!!!”, and “You show ’em!!!” There were star-spangled banner emojis and thumbs-up emojis and clips of Trump laying into the “FAKE news MSM liars!”
Trump had spoken, and his audience had heard him. Then I did what I’ve been doing for two and a half months now. I Googled “mainstream media is…” And there it was. Google’s autocomplete suggestions: “mainstream media is… dead, dying, fake news, fake, finished”. Is it dead, I wonder? Has FAKE news won? Are we now the FAKE news? Is the mainstream media – we, us, I – dying?
I click Google’s first suggested link. It leads to a website called CNSnews.com and an article: “The Mainstream media are dead.” They’re dead, I learn, because they – we, I – “cannot be trusted”. How had it, an obscure site I’d never heard of, dominated Google’s search algorithm on the topic? In the “About us” tab, I learn CNSnews is owned by the Media Research Center, which a click later I learn is “America’s media watchdog”, an organisation that claims an “unwavering commitment to neutralising leftwing bias in the news, media and popular culture”.
Another couple of clicks and I discover that it receives a large bulk of its funding – more than $10m in the past decade – from a single source, the hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer. If you follow US politics you may recognise the name. Robert Mercer is the money behind Donald Trump. But then, I will come to learn, Robert Mercer is the money behind an awful lot of things. He was Trump’s single biggest donor. Mercer started backing Ted Cruz, but when he fell out of the presidential race he threw his money – $13.5m of it – behind the Trump campaign.
It’s money he’s made as a result of his career as a brilliant but reclusive computer scientist. He started his career at IBM, where he made what the Association for Computational Linguistics called “revolutionary” breakthroughs in language processing – a science that went on to be key in developing today’s AI – and later became joint CEO of Renaissance Technologies, a hedge fund that makes its money by using algorithms to model and trade on the financial markets.
One of its funds, Medallion, which manages only its employees’ money, is the most successful in the world – generating $55bn so far. And since 2010, Mercer has donated $45m to different political campaigns – all Republican – and another $50m to non-profits – all rightwing, ultra-conservative. This is a billionaire who is, as billionaires are wont, trying to reshape the world according to his personal beliefs.
Donald Trump’s presidential campaigned received $13.5m from Robert Mercer. Photograph: Timothy A Clary/AFP/Getty Images
Robert Mercer very rarely speaks in public and never to journalists, so to gauge his beliefs you have to look at where he channels his money: a series of yachts, all called Sea Owl; a $2.9m model train set; climate change denial (he funds a climate change denial thinktank, the Heartland Institute); and what is maybe the ultimate rich man’s plaything – the disruption of the mainstream media. In this he is helped by his close associate Steve Bannon, Trump’s campaign manager and now chief strategist. The money he gives to the Media Research Center, with its mission of correcting “liberal bias” is just one of his media plays. There are other bigger, and even more deliberate strategies, and shining brightly, the star at the centre of the Mercer media galaxy, is Breitbart.
It was $10m of Mercer’s money that enabled Bannon to fund Breitbart – a rightwing news site, set up with the express intention of being a Huffington Post for the right. It has launched the careers of Milo Yiannopoulos and his like, regularly hosts antisemitic and Islamophobic views, and is currently being boycotted by more than 1,000 brands after an activist campaign. It has been phenomenally successful: the 29th most popular site in America with 2bn page views a year. It’s bigger than its inspiration, the Huffington Post, bigger, even, than PornHub. It’s the biggest political site on Facebook. The biggest on Twitter.
Prominent rightwing journalist Andrew Breitbart, who founded the site but died in 2012, told Bannon that they had “to take back the culture”. And, arguably, they have, though American culture is only the start of it. In 2014, Bannon launched Breitbart London, telling the New York Times it was specifically timed ahead of the UK’s forthcoming election. It was, he said, the latest front “in our current cultural and political war”. France and Germany are next.
A determined plutocrat and a brilliant media strategist can, and have, found a way to mould journalism to their own ends
But there was another reason why I recognised Robert Mercer’s name: because of his connection to Cambridge Analytica, a small data analytics company. He is reported to have a $10m stake in the company, which was spun out of a bigger British company called SCL Group. It specialises in “election management strategies” and “messaging and information operations”, refined over 25 years in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan. In military circles this is known as “psyops” – psychological operations. (Mass propaganda that works by acting on people’s emotions.)
Cambridge Analytica worked for the Trump campaign and, so I’d read, the Leave campaign. When Mercer supported Cruz, Cambridge Analytica worked with Cruz. When Robert Mercer started supporting Trump, Cambridge Analytica came too. And where Mercer’s money is, Steve Bannon is usually close by: it was reported that until recently he had a seat on the board.
Last December, I wrote about Cambridge Analytica in a piece about how Google’s search results on certain subjects were being dominated by rightwing and extremist sites. Jonathan Albright, a professor of communications at Elon University, North Carolina, who had mapped the news ecosystem and found millions of links between rightwing sites “strangling” the mainstream media, told me that trackers from sites like Breitbart could also be used by companies like Cambridge Analytica to follow people around the web and then, via Facebook, target them with ads.
On its website, Cambridge Analytica makes the astonishing boast that it has psychological profiles based on 5,000 separate pieces of data on 220 million American voters – its USP is to use this data to understand people’s deepest emotions and then target them accordingly. The system, according to Albright, amounted to a “propaganda machine”.
04-03-2017, 03:03 PM
(04-03-2017, 11:26 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ](03-30-2017, 09:44 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Waffling on Gorsuch:
Undeclared Position
Need to hear from you.
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Coons (D-DE)
Cortez Masto (D-NV)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Duckworth (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
King (I–ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Leahy (D-VT)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Schatz (D-HI)
Tester (D-MT)
Warner (D-VA)
We need 41 to stop
Neil Gorsuch
We have 28
For sure, the ones in bold are likely to vote to confirm. Eric, hopefully you understand why that is. Question for you would be, how important is winning one ideological battle only to lose the war (2018 and 2020 Congressional elections).
Correction; we know now that the ones in bold will vote to confirm this right-wing creep Gorsuch. I understand why that is; they are from creepy red states. Tester, McCaskill and Cortez-Masto have come out for the filibuster. The latter even sent me an email today asking me to sign her petition to filibuster Gorsuch! You're guess seems a bit off on this matter, anyway! Schumer said on Meet the Press yesterday he has the votes to filibuster. Hallelujah.
How important is this battle? Extremely Crucial. Imagine what happens if a Democratic appointee on the SCOTUS dies or retires? And Gorsuch is confirmed? The Republicans will surely use the nuclear option, if they haven't already, to turn our Court over to the racist oligarchs next time. Even if Gorsuch is allowed to be confirmed, what would that mean, if Kennedy goes Trump? It means that gerrymandering, now under suit, is upheld, and the Repugs get to continue to rig the House and statehouses for many years to come. They also get to uphold laws that make it harder for poor and non-whites to vote, laws which are also under challenge now even in red and purple states. No, this vote is a vote on whether the people will have any voice at all in our government from now on. I'd say that's pretty crucial.
Yes, if we lose this battle, for that very reason we the people DO lose the 2018 and 2020 elections!